Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff arising out of a collision between an auto in which she was riding and the car of the defendant Emery, driven by the defendant Henry LeRud, and a bus of the defendant Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc., driven by the defendant George A. Pentz. The case was tried before J. B. Himsl, Judge, and a jury, and a verdict rendered for defendants. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peterson
Witness -- privileged communication -- between attorney and client.
1. Where an employer delivers to an attorney a document prepared by an agent or employe, for the purpose of obtaining professional advice or for use in prospective or pending litigation, the document is privileged as a communication between attorney and client.
Witness -- status of recipient of privileged communication between attorney and client.
2. Where parties are engaged in maintaining a common cause, furnishing copy of a document privileged as a communication between attorney and client by attorney for one party to attorney for another does not affect the privilege, and the recipient of the copy stands under the same restraints arising from the privileged character of the document as the giver.
Witness -- refusal to produce document constituting privileged communication.
Evidence -- parol to show contents of privileged document after notice to produce.
3. Where a party refuses to produce a document which is privileged as a communication between attorney and client, the opposing party, if he has given due notice to produce, may show the contents thereof by parol testimony; but such testimony must itself not be privileged.
Appeal and error -- review -- exclusion of evidence not prejudicial -- fact otherwise proved.
4. Error in excluding evidence does not require a reversal where the fact is otherwise satisfactorily proved.
Appeal and error -- necessity of objection at trial as ground for reversal on appeal.
5. Where a statement by one of several defendants is an admission as to him and an impeachment of him as to the others and plaintiff fails to call the court's attention at the time to error in the charge in limiting the effect of the statement as impeachment without a qualification that it was an admission as against the party making it, the error cannot be relied on for reversal on appeal.
Automobile -- collision with approaching vehicle passing third vehicle -- instructions.
6. Where there is no evidence to sustain a contrary view, an instruction that certain defendants did not discover plaintiff in a position of peril until they saw the Ford turn from behind the ...